LDS general conference - Fall 2013

[jimmy eat jazz]

I wasn't personally a fan of that line. I think what he was saying, is "Be a critical thinker--of the criticisms too, not just of the faith". But that doesn't come across in that sound bite.

Of course, one of the ironies of the LDS Church is that behavior it praises in others it condemns among its own members. One someone else rejects the faiths or traditions of their fathers, doubts their religious beliefs, questions their religious authority, etc., this is all AOK IF it leads to conversion to the LDS church. BUT if members of the LDS Church engage in any of the above behaviors, then . . . well, you know the story.

This highlights one of my primary observations of religious faithful (particularly those belonging to dogmatic religions, which I consider the Mormon Church to be), a steadfast unwillingness and/or inability to apply the same standards to their own beliefs and behaviors that they expect of others.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The difference is, Jesus Christ is the central figure of LDS doctrine.

edit: I know a lot of peeps like to argue that Joseph Smith is, and although he is important, historically speaking, to the LDS faith, he isn't worshipped. Nobody prays to or in the name of Joseph Smith.

Although 'nativity scenes' of Joseph Smith's birth (such as was at BYU a few Christmas's ago), might understandably cause reasonable people to wonder whether the LDS do worship Joseph Smith. (Google Joseph Smith nativity scene at BYU if you want to see.)

 

[Stoked]

Can you be more specific?

The only reasons I see any one being itnerested are mere curiosity or to further an agenda. For me it is just interesting to see the growth of the church. For others it is to prove it is "insert descriptive phrase".

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What you are seeing and talking about are two sides of a coin. As to my own personal beliefs it does not matter at all if more people join the church because I believe what I believe.

On the flip side there are prophecies in the scripture that talk about the future of the world and the future of the Lord's church and as you watch things progress in what you see in the world as well as in the church it can bring excitement, or just be interesting to talk about. It can just be informational, this is how many members we have, but generally there is meaning in numbers.

This is just my take and opinion.

Not to be too flippant about it, but just how excited can you get about .002 of the world's population? Is it like, '"Wow, only .998 to go. Yahoo!!"

Honestly, at this rate, the sun will have collapsed on itself before the LDS Church approaches anything like a 'significant' share of humanity.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Can you be more specific?

Let me put it this way.

If you found the Vinyl among vinyls that changed your life, for lack of a better term the OneVinyl, and you knew that it would change the life of anyone else that truly listened to it... would you want to share it?

What if someone you cared about sort of listened to it but then blew it off and you could tell they didn't really take the time to enjoy it and soak it in and were distracted... would you try again and see if they had time to really listen to it this time?

Would you keep the OneVinyl to yourself?

 

[Stoked]

Not to be too flippant about it, but just how excited can you get about .002 of the world's population? Is it like, '"Wow, only .998 to go. Yahoo!!"

Honestly, at this rate, the sun will have collapsed on itself before the LDS Church approaches anything like a 'significant' share of humanity.

So? Progress is progress. If you view it as members do, which is saving people shouldn't you celebrate every convert?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Not to be too flippant about it, but just how excited can you get about .002 of the world's population? Is it like, '"Wow, only .998 to go. Yahoo!!"

Honestly, at this rate, the sun will have collapsed on itself before the LDS Church approaches anything like a 'significant' share of humanity.

You ever see a fire start, or the beginning of an avalanche? It usually starts with something smaller than .002.

Exponential growth goes fast once it gets rolling. No I'm not expecting the world to convert to the LDS Church, just stating the possible.

Personally I know the work is a one by one work, it just takes more one's to be working at the same time. This is a personal thing, so I don't get too caught up in the numbers unless I'm trying to figure out what that means for the individuals.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

So? Progress is progress. If you view it as members do, which is saving people shouldn't you celebrate every convert?

Sure. I'm not saying that the LDS faithful should not celebrate every convert or take pride in church growth--they are fully justified in doing so. What I am suggesting is that notions that the LDS Church is growing at the rate to fulfill some kind of prophecy about the gospel filling the earth or to serve as a 'social proof' about the Church's divine mission appear to be misguided based on actual membership numbers relative to the overall population. (And again, this is using generous assumptions about membership numbers.)

When I was in the Church, a common refrain was that Church growth was fulfillment of the Prophecy in Daniel (or which book was it?) about a stone cut without hand rolling forth to fill the earth. In this story, the stone was the LDS Church. I'd say that .002 of the population, with stagnating net growth rates, is a far, far cry from fulfilling this prophecy.

 

[Bronco70]

Although 'nativity scenes' of Joseph Smith's birth (such as was at BYU a few Christmas's ago), might understandably cause reasonable people to wonder whether the LDS do worship Joseph Smith. (Google Joseph Smith nativity scene at BYU if you want to see.)

I think it's completely reasonable for some people to come to the conclusion that JS is worshipped in the church. He is held in high regard (to understate it), and I can see where that line could be fuzzy for someone looking in. But the fact of the matter is, Jesus Christ is the central figure in the doctrine. JS is merely an historical figure, and inconsequential to the doctrine itself.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You ever see a fire start, or the beginning of an avalanche? It usually starts with something smaller than .002.

Exponential growth goes fast once it gets rolling. No I'm not expecting the world to convert to the LDS Church, just stating the possible.

Personally I know the work is a one by one work, it just takes more one's to be working at the same time. This is a personal thing, so I don't get too caught up in the numbers unless I'm trying to figure out what that means for the individuals.

The problem is that exponential growth is not occurring. See for example https://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/5611/mormon_numbers_not_adding_up/. While this is by no means definitive, it does corroborate many other data points about endemic inactivity rates and stagnating net growth (conversions - those leaving). I think it is all well and good not to get caught up in the numbers, but that's NOT what has happened generally in the past, as the LDS Church continually made claims for itself as one of the fastest growing churches and used growth numbers to indicate fulfillment of prophecy. I suspect that given recent trends, we'll be hearing less about this in the future among the leaders and rank and file as the implications of the numbers start gradually to settle in.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think it's completely reasonable for some people to come to the conclusion that JS is worshipped in the church. He is held in high regard (to understate it), and I can see where that line could be fuzzy for someone looking in. But the fact of the matter is, Jesus Christ is the central figure in the doctrine. JS is merely an historical figure, and inconsequential to the doctrine itself.

I agree with you until your last sentence, which I find NOT to be true in even the remotest sense of the word.

p.s. Sorry for all the posts today. It's one of those days I've got writer's block and am looking to kill time.

 

[Bronco70]

I agree with you until your last sentence, which I find NOT to be true in even the remotest sense of the word.

How do you figure?

He's extremely important in the context of the history of the church, but the doctrine and the history are separate things.

Edit: He is also an important influence in policy, but there again, that's different than doctrine.